Category: Politics

Grassley Shields Second Amendment From Liberal Attack
Offers Grassley-Cruz-Tillis Public Safety, Second Amendment Protection Legislation as Alternative

WASHINGTON – Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today blocked Senate passage of the largely partisan H.R. 8 legislation, which would criminalize private transfers of firearms without government involvement.
Grassley objected to the unanimous consent request, raised by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), to bring up and pass the bill without a vote in the Senate. Grassley, who offered an alternative measure providing for firearm and public safety, provided the following prepared remarks during his objection. [VIDEO]
Let me start off by saying the senseless tragedy we saw in Michigan should not have happened. The shooter killed four and injured others in a shocking act of violence. I cannot imagine what the families of the victims are going through. Difficult topics require across the aisle conversations, and I would invite my colleagues across the aisle to have a bipartisan conversation on this topic. 
 
Violent crime and violence at schools are serious problems. I have supported legislative efforts to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). For example, I introduced the EAGLES Act, a bipartisan bill that would help reauthorize the U.S. Secret Service’s National Threat Assessment Center, where they study targeted violence and proactively identify and manage threats before they result in tragedies.  
 
However, I have serious concerns with the bill raised by Senator Murphy. This bill is hostile toward lawful gun owners and lawful firearms transactions. This will not solve the problem it seeks to address. So-called “universal” background checks will not prevent crime, but will turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals.  
 
I’ve introduced legislation, along with Senators Cruz and Tillis, the Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act. Our bill will be much more effective than the underlying bill, and has been supported by a majority of the Senate in the past. But the Democrat leadership has blocked it, which I assume they will do again today. This legislation would reauthorize and improve NICS, increase resources for prosecutions of gun crime, address mental illness in the criminal justice system and strengthen criminal law by including straw purchasing and illegal firearm trafficking statutes. It does that without burdening the Second Amendment rights of Americans. In addition, this bill would require a commission to study and report to Congress the underlying causes and triggers of mass shootings. The commission and study proposed could not come at a more important time.
 
I urge my colleagues to support this meaningful legislation. 
Sens. Grassley and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) first introduced their Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act as an amendment in 2013. The senators have once again reintroduced the legislation this year alongside Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). A summary of their legislation can be found HERE.
The partisan H.R.8 would significantly burden law-abiding gun owners without addressing the root causes of gun violence. The legislation would potentially criminalize perfectly sensible transfers, including certain transfers between family members.

In early colonial times, some colonies often ordered the populace to bear their weapons to work and even to church services. Even farther back than that, in medieval Europe, the practice of being armed at certain public functions finally devolved into carrying huge, ornately decorated ‘Bearing Swords’ which was more an indication of class status. The bigger and more expensive, the higher up the ladder you- or the master a squire was carrying for -was.
The city council of this town wants everyone attending council meetings to bear arms…. if they want to.
I rather like the idea.

‘Legally armed’ rule has critics gunning for New Mexico town

ESTANCIA, N.M. (AP) — Mayor Nathan Dial said a recently approved rule requiring people to be “legally armed” to attend an Estancia Town Council meeting is just a way of sending notice that the town is not going to let the state dictate what it can and cannot do.

“Rural New Mexico is just tired of being pushed around,” Dial told the Albuquerque Journal as he sat in town hall with a snub nose .357 on his hip. “This is not just about the Second Amendment. This is about all civil liberties.”

Continue reading “”

Bill Introduced To Expand List Of Disqualifiers

The Federal prohibitions on who may or may not purchase/possess a firearm are a subject of debate with many. On one side of the aisle we’re told that too many violent people are still able to get access to firearms. The other side might be saying “shall not be infringed” until blue in the face. Personally, just trying to report on this subject, I’ve been accused of being too “progressive” and that my views embrace unconstitutional provisions in the law. I imagine this’ll be no different. Just trying to get the details out in the open. What’s the subject today? Expanding who’s disqualified from firearm ownership.

A bill was recently introduced by Colorado Congressman Joe Neguse, the Vice Chair of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force. Neguse announced on November 4th the introduction of the legislation. The Congressman was joined by Representatives Jake Auchincloss and Robin Kelly in bringing the bill forward. H.R.5878 – End Gun Violence Act of 2021 aims to add certain misdemeanors to the current list of those who no longer have a Second Amendment right.

Continue reading “”

It’s actually quite fun to watch demoncraps fight among themselves

Centrist Dems sink Biden’s nominee for top bank regulator.

Five Democratic senators have told the White House they won’t support Saule Omarova to head the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, effectively killing her nomination for the powerful bank-regulator position.

Why it matters: The defiant opposition from a broad coalition of senators reflects the real policy concerns they had with Omarova, a Cornell University law professor who’s attracted controversy for her academic writings about hemming in big banks.

  • Their opposition also hints at a willingness of some Democratic senators to buck the White House on an important nomination, even if it hands Republicans a political — and symbolic — victory.
  • Republicans have attacked the Kazakh-born scholar in remarkably personal terms, and turned her nomination into a proxy battle over how banks should be regulated.

Driving the news: In phone call on Wednesday, Sens. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), all members of the Senate Banking Committee, told Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) — the panel’s chairman — of their opposition.

  • They’re joined in opposing her by Sens. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.).
  • The five senators’ offices either declined to comment or did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Go deeper: Biden officials also have heard directly from the senators. They’re aware of their deep opposition and know Omarova faces nearly impossible odds for confirmation.

  • Still, they continue to back her publicly.
  • “The White House continues to strongly support her historic nomination,” a White House official told Axios.
  • “Saule Omarova is eminently qualified for this position,” the official said. “She has been treated unfairly since her nomination with unacceptable red-baiting from Republicans like it’s the McCarthy era.”

Omarova tried to salvage her candidacy during a hearing last week, where Republicans savaged her for her previous academic writings about how community banks should be regulated.

  • Her nomination, reflected in an ugly hearing in which Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) questioned whether he should call the native of the former Soviet Union “professor” or “comrade,” became a proxy battle.
  • It split between the banking industry and progressives eager to impose more regulation on it.
  • “The OCC charters, regulates and supervises all national banks and federal savings associations, as well as federal branches and agencies of foreign banks,” it says on its website.

The big picture: Now that the president has stared down progressives by renominating Jerome Powell for another term as chairman of the Federal Reserve, ideological fights between centrists and progressives about economic appointments are going to become more pronounced.

  • Progressives like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have already indicated they’ll work to oppose Powell.
  • Warren does support another Biden move, elevating Fed governor Lael Brainard to the vice-chair position.
  • With centrists like Tester getting their preferred Fed candidate nominated for a second term, they may feel more emboldened to challenge the White House on lower-level nominations.

Governor Parson can be as ‘open to adjustments’ as he wants, but that counts for little as the legislature passes changes to laws, not him.

Police Propose Changes To Missouri’s 2A Preservation Act

Even before Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act took effect, there were a lot of grumbles from some law enforcement in the state who felt that the new law was going to set them up to be sued if they cooperated with federal agents in taking down criminal suspects who might be armed with a gun. SAPA, as it’s commonly called, not only prohibits state and local law enforcement from cooperating with the feds in enforcing any unconstitutional gun control laws, but provides an avenue by which officers can be individually sued for doing so.

Since SAPA took effect back in September, a handful of agencies have suspended all cooperation with federal authorities for fear of running afoul of the law. The law was also the subject of litigation by the city of St. Louis and a couple of counties, but a judge rejected a request to block the law from taking force. And while I don’t believe that the law as written should stop police from working with their federal counterparts, and plenty of agencies continue to do so, the Missouri Police Chiefs Association is now officially asking lawmakers to make some changes.

In the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Star, the MPCA proposes specifying that the law would only apply to new federal gun restrictions approved after this past August, and that it doesn’t apply to suspects whom police encounter committing a crime.

It also proposes clarifying which weapons-related federal crimes local police are allowed to help enforce. The current law allows them to help enforce gun restrictions that are similar to those in Missouri law, as long as those charges are “merely ancillary” to another criminal charge — wording that police groups have called vague.

“It is our desire to protect the rights of ALL Missourians while protecting officers from frivolous civil litigation related to the continued joint endeavors with our federal partners,” the association wrote. “We look forward to working with you and your fellow lawmakers to address some clarifications in the law and eliminate those unintended consequences without derailing the intent of SAPA.”

MPCA director Robert Shockey, who is Arnold police chief, declined to be interviewed about the requests.

I haven’t seen a copy of the letter, so I can only base my opinion off of the report by the Kansas City Star, but the first two requests don’t seem to be unreasonable. I do have some concerns about the MPCA wanting to “clarify” which gun-related federal crimes can be enforced by law enforcement, though. First, if SAPA is only going to apply to federal gun laws that were passed after August of 2021, then there’s no need to clarify anything. Beyond that, though, does the phrase “merely ancillary” really need clarification? If an agency is cooperating with, say, a federal drug task force and a gun is discovered in the course of that drug investigation, then the gun charge is an ancillary one. If the feds are going after someone specifically for violating a new federal gun control law or regulation that isn’t mirrored in Missouri state law, local police can’t help. It’s really not that complicated.

Even if some of these complaints by police are overstated, I expect that they’re finding some receptive ears among lawmakers. SAPA original sponsor Rep. Jared Taylor has said he’s not in favor of any changes, but Gov. Mike Parson has indicated that he’s open to “adjustments” if necessary.

I don’t think there’s any chance of the law being repealed outright, but whether or not the changes would make the law better or merely water it down is going to be the topic of much debate in Jefferson City in the months ahead, and I wouldn’t be shocked to see at least some minor revisions agreed to next session.

Bleat Zero opens wide again (It is interesting that he’s got enough ‘integrity’ that he’s still so open about his fantasies of gun control)

O’Rourke: Permitless Carry & AR-15s Prevent “Responsible Gun Ownership”

We’ve seen poll after poll in recent weeks pick up on the fact that Americans are souring on gun control, with organizations like Gallup and Quinnipiac noting plunging support for new gun control laws as violent crime rises around the country. Gun control supporters like UCLA professor Adam Winkler are urging their fellow activists to quit talking about trying to ban AR-15s and “large capacity” magazines and instead focus on issues that are supposedly more popular with the public like universal background checks. Joe Biden himself isn’t talking up his gun ban plans much these days, though he was quite vocal about banning AR-15s and forcing gun owners to either hand over their modern sporting rifles or register them with the federal government.

But while Biden has mostly stopped mumbling about his gun ban, the guy he said would be in charge of rounding up the guns is still very much in favor of the idea. Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke isn’t in the Biden administration, however. He’s running for governor of Texas, and on Sunday he once again told Texans that he’s coming for their guns… and their right to carry.

The former Democratic presidential and senatorial candidate told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” that Texas has a “long, proud tradition of responsible gun ownership.” But Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s support of civilians owning military-style weapons, now without training and background checks, has threatened that tradition, he said.

“Most of us here in Texas … do not want to see our friends, our family members, our neighbors shot up with these weapons of war,” he said. “So yes, I still hold this view.”

O’Rourke was responding to a question Bash posed about whether he maintains a position he shared in 2019 while expressing support for mandatory buybacks for semiautomatic weapons. He said: “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47, you’re not going to be allowed to use it against your fellow Americans anymore.”

I don’t want my friends, family members, or neighbors to die in a drunk driving accident, but I’m not trying to ban cars or liquor. Similarly, I don’t want my loved ones (or strangers, for that matter) to become the victim of a violent crime, but I don’t think that banning guns is the answer.

What Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke is really saying is that he’s willing to put people in prison for exercising their Second Amendment rights. He not only wants to criminalize owning the most commonly-purchased rifle in the United States, but wants to repeal the Constitutional Carry law that Gov. Greg Abbott signed earlier this year.

“I have also been listening to my fellow Texans who are concerned about this idea of permitless carry that Greg Abbott has signed into law, which allows any Texan to carry a loaded firearm, despite the pleadings of police chiefs and law enforcement from across the state, who said it would make their jobs more dangerous and make it harder for them to protect those that they were sworn to serve in their communities,” O’Rourke said.

“So, we don’t want extremism in our gun laws. We want to protect the Second Amendment. We want to protect the lives of our fellow Texans,” he said. “And I know that, when we come together and stop this divisive extremism that we see from Greg Abbott right now, we’re going to be able to do that.”

What’s more extreme; recognizing the right to bear arms without a government permission slip or putting people in prison for maintaining possession of an AR-15 that was lawfully purchased? Heck, even if you think both are equally extreme positions, wouldn’t you rather side with the “extreme” position that doesn’t involve jailing people for exercising a constitutionally protected right?

Would Texans be safer with some Beto-style gun control laws in place? Why not ask Baltimore residents? After all, AR-15s and other “assault weapons” have been banned for nearly 10 years in Maryland, and the state’s “may issue” laws prevent all but a handful of residents around the state from lawfully carrying a gun in self-defense. Baltimore also just surpassed 300 homicides this year; a grim milestone that has been reached for seven years straight.

The idea that we can ban our way to safety not only runs afoul of our Constitution, but is an affront to common sense. The fact that it’s also the fundamental premise of Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke’s public safety platform tells me that the Democrat is a true believer when it comes to infringing on our right to keep and bear arms. There are all kinds of reasons for O’Rourke to pivot from his gun banning desires, but instead he’s doubling down on his intent to criminalize our Second Amendment rights.

SAF: SURVEY SHOWS PUBLIC TRUSTS GOP MORE THAN DEMS ON GUNS

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today pointed to a new Morning Consult/Politico survey finding that the public trusts Republicans more than Democrats on gun policy as an acknowledgement that Americans are rejecting the Democrats’ radical gun control agenda.

The survey of almost 2,000 registered voters was conducted Nov. 5-7 and revealed that in the top five areas of concern—national security, the economy, gun policy, immigration and jobs—polling results show Democrats trailing.

“These survey results are revealing, especially on firearms policies,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “After years of failed gun control policies, the public has finally concluded that Democrats have only worked to disarm law-abiding citizens and make us more vulnerable to criminal attack. Policies advertised as keeping guns out of the hands of criminals have actually only been tough on their intended victims.

“The survey found that 46 percent of all American voters think Republicans do a better job on gun policy, while 39 percent still cling to the notion Democrats have the right approach, but a significant 15 percent are still in the middle,” he continued. “When the survey numbers focus on important suburban voters, the numbers get even worse. Forty-seven percent of voters in the suburbs believe Republicans are better on gun policy, while only 37 percent support Democrat schemes, and 16 percent remain undecided.

“The ten percent margin in the suburbs is extremely important for the upcoming 2022 midterm elections,” Gottlieb said. “That is where almost all the swing congressional districts are. This could cost the Democrats between 40 and 60 seats in the House.”

SAF has run more than 1,000 national TV spots on over 24 cable networks, along with radio advertising and millions of impressions on the Internet have helped educate the public on gun policy and the survey reflects the impact.

Gottlieb pointed to the election results in Virginia, which signaled a “new direction in the Old Dominion.” Commonwealth voters filled all statewide offices with Republicans, and put the House back in GOP control following two disastrous years.

“I anticipate Virginia gun owners will press the new administration and legislative majority to quickly undo the policies adopted by Ralph Northam and his cronies in 2020,” Gottlieb predicted. “Those policies, specifically the destruction of state preemption which guarantees uniformity of gun laws statewide, and the one-handgun-per-month purchase restriction, penalize honest citizens and do nothing to reduce violent crime.

“Democrats may have forgotten that right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Constitution,” he concluded. “Rights are not up to a public vote, but people who attempt to infringe on those rights certainly are. Voters made that clear in Virginia and are poised to do it again in November 2022.”

 

NSSF PRAISES SENATE BIPARTISAN OUTDOOR RECREATION ACT

NEWTOWN, Conn. — The National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®), the firearm industry trade association, praised the introduction of the bipartisan Outdoor Recreation Act. This legislation, introduced by U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), would increase and improve outdoor recreation opportunities across the nation while improving infrastructure and driving economic growth in rural communities.

“The National Shooting Sports Foundation commends Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Sen. Joe Manchin and Ranking Member Sen. John Barrasso for introducing this vitally important outdoor recreation package,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “In particular, NSSF appreciates the bipartisan measures included in this legislation that would require the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to ensure that both agencies have at least one qualifying recreational shooting range in each National Forest and BLM district. Recreational shooting is tied to approximately 85 percent of the Pittman-Robertson excise taxes currently being paid by firearm and ammunition manufacturers, making it a major driving contributor to wildlife conservation. This legislation would ensure that recreational marksmanship can be practiced in accessible and safe environments while also benefiting conservation.”

Senator Manchin explained in a press release that the Outdoor Recreation Act would support outdoor recreation economies and provide an economic boost to local communities while preserving public lands for future generations. Sen. Barrasso added that the bill not only establishes public access to shooting ranges on USFS and BLM lands, but also ensures access to public lands and modernizes campgrounds.

Specifically, the legislation would direct the Forest Service to issue guidance for recreational climbing in designated Wilderness Areas and require the Forest Service and BLM to designate many new shooting ranges on National Forests and BLM land.

Unless demoncrap goobernor Wolf has an ephiphany, my guess is he vetoes this, but that’s politics.

Bill to Make Pennsylvania 22nd Constitutional Carry State Heads to Gov. Wolf

Legislation that would make Pennsylvania the 22nd constitutional carry state passed the state house yesterday and is heading to Gov. Tom Wolf’s (D) desk.

The Associated Press reports that the legislation would do away with any municipal-level permit requirement for open carry and end the statewide requirement that law-abiding citizens get a permit in order to conceal carry.

ABC 27 describes the legislation, House Bill 565, as “polarizing.” Republicans support the bill, Democrats largely oppose it.

House Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff (R) commented on HB565, saying, “The legislation to assert Pennsylvanian’s constitutional right to carry firearms without a permit protects the Second Amendment and Article 1, sec. 21 state constitutional rights of legal gun owners. The bill changes nothing regarding who can legally own a gun and takes nothing away from law enforcement from going after those owning and using guns illegally.”

State rep. Jordan Harris (D) voiced opposition to the bill.

Harris said, “We’re wasting time on a piece of legislation that’s gonna be vetoed. We know there’s no votes to override the governor’s veto, we’re literally wasting time when Pennsylvanians have sent us here to address the issues that are of the utmost importance to them and I personally believe this is not one of them.”

The other 21 states with constitutional carry are: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Using their own rule book against them.
Rule #5 “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”

Biden tormented by Republican guerrilla campaign and ‘I did it’ stickers

If you see Joe Biden’s picture on a gas pump these days, it’s not a tribute to his amazingly successful energy policy.

The stickers — with Biden pointing to the $3.50 a gallon gas price and saying “I did that!” — are part of a Republican guerrilla campaign to undermine the Democratic administration. They’ve gone viral online.
And it’s cheap and easy. A 100-pack of the stickers is going for just six bucks on Amazon. You might see the derisive stickers up in New Hampshire, the swing state Biden is set to visit on Tuesday to promote his $1.2 trillion infrastructure package that just passed Congress.

The Democratic president may not get the overwhelmingly positive reception he was hoping for, though.

New Hampshire is a blue state that’s in danger of going red in the 2022 mid-term election and, like the colorful leaves that fall before winter, it’s often a harbinger of chilly political winds to come. Biden’s approval rating in the Granite State is the same as it is nationally — abysmal. And the passage of the infrastructure bill won’t change that, no matter how much the Democrats and CNN celebrate it.

The gas pump stickers are similar tactics to what Democrats did to Republican presidents like Trump. Remember those “Not my President” bumper stickers? So in a way Republicans now are just returning the favor.
Biden opponents have also adopted the “Let’s Go Brandon” chant to taunt the president. It’s a PG way of saying something much more crude that has the same number of syllables, but it’s a clever tactic and it drives Democrats crazy.

This is what passes for grass roots political strategy these days. The “Let’s Go Brandon” chant and “I Did it” stickers went viral on social media platforms like TikTok.

New Hampshire is a hotbed of politics, because of the first in the nation primary. Voters have become accustomed to getting up close to presidents and candidates and aren’t afraid to confront them in person.

That’s why Biden’s visit contains some risk, although he’ll be protected in his trip to Woodstock, far out of major cities like Nashua and Manchester.
Biden is also planning to spend some quality time in the little middle class enclave of Nantucket over the Thanksgiving holiday. Nothing like going to an ultra exclusive vacation island to showcase how the infrastructure bill will help the little people in the middle of an economic crisis.

Air Force One is expected to fly right into Nantucket’s tiny airport, and Secret Service will be crawling all over the island, which I’m sure the locals will appreciate.

Loser Beet Zero runs for Governor of Texas.

Permitless concealed carry on the move in Ohio

Ohio lawmakers could vote next week to relax gun laws

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WXIX) – Ohio lawmakers could vote as soon as next week to relax current gun laws by waiving training and permit requirements to carry concealed guns.

If passed into law, House Bill 227 would make a concealed weapons permit optional, including the mandatory eight hours of training, and eliminate the current requirement that people promptly notify police officers they are carrying a concealed weapon.

The primary sponsor of the bill is Republican lawmaker, Rep. Tom Brinkman of Mt. Lookout.

The other sponsor is a Republican from Delaware County, Rep. Kris Jordan of Ostrander.

“It’s our Second Amendment rights. Government is too restrictive. People deserve their rights,” Brinkman tells FOX19 NOW.

Continue reading “”

Hard Drive: Joe Biden Thinks ‘2A is Being Badly Interpreted’

Buried in the broad-ranging material found on the hard drive from Hunter Biden’s laptop—a copy of which has been obtained by AmmoLand News—is a view of how Joe Biden looks at the Second Amendment, with reports from his daily newsletter titled “Office of Vice President Joe Biden News Briefing,” published when the Delaware Democrat was no longer serving as vice president, and before he entered the campaign.

This newsletter, produced five days a week by Bulletin Intelligence LLC, based in Reston, Va., is a treasure trove of news and daily Biden updates, evidently published to keep Biden relevant to anyone reading. AmmoLand reached out to Bulletin Intelligence for comment, but there was no response.

A note on each newsletter said Bulletin Intelligence LLC gathers content “from thousands of newspapers, national magazines, national and local television programs, radio broadcasts, social-media platforms and additional forms of open-source data.” The Biden newsletters are no longer available online. But the file remains on Hunter Biden’s hard drive.

Links to various “Biden in the News” stories over the course of several months in 2018 and early 2019 reveal that the former vice president was busy on Twitter following a school shooting at Santa Fe High School in Santa Fe, Texas and five weeks later following a shooting at the newspaper offices of the Capitol Gazette newspaper.

Following the school shooting, Biden sent what might be considered a “boilerplate” reaction declaring, “Enough is enough is enough. Decent people have to take a stand. These are our children.”

In the aftermath of the newspaper office attack, Biden was again on Twitter, stating, “Another shooting. Another night in America where a father, a wife, a friend, a neighbor won’t be coming home. We can’t accept this. It must end. Congress must act.”

They are the sort of messages an anti-gunner would tweet, following the established dictum of “never let a crisis go to waste.”

According to The Hill, as noted in the newsletter, Biden declared during a “discussion” with Amy Gutmann, president of the University of Pennsylvania, “I think the Second Amendment is being badly interpreted. It’s not consistent with what our Founders intended.”

This from the man who repeatedly insisted there were certain types of gun prohibitions in effect at the time the Second Amendment was written. It was a claim even the Washington Post Fact Checker refuted, giving Biden Four Pinocchios in the process, essentially calling the former vice president a liar.

Continue reading “”

Left has short memory in ‘Let’s go Brandon’ outrage

There’s a crisis afoot in the land — people are being rude to President Joe Biden.
The trend of anti-Biden protestors chanting or holding signs saying “(Expletive) Joe Biden,” or the cleaner version that has come to signify the same thing, “Let’s go Brandon,” is being portrayed as a new low in American politics.
A recent Washington Post report was headlined, “Biden’s Critics Hurl Increasingly Vulgar Taunts.” It stipulated presidents have always been the subject of derision and abuse, then claimed, “The current eruption of anti-Biden signs and chants, however, is on another level, far more vulgar, and widespread.”
Really? Put aside all the abuse presidents were subjected to prior to the digital age, whether John Quincy Adams (“pimp”), Andrew Jackson (“a greater tyrant than Cromwell, Cesar, or Bonaparte”), Martin van Buren (“Martin van Ruin”), Abraham Lincoln (“the original gorilla”) or Theodore Roosevelt (“that damned cowboy”). The last few years weren’t exactly a mannerly period of polite disagreement in our national life.
As Byron York of the Washington Examiner has noted, Donald Trump’s opponents gloried in the F-word, such that without it some of them would have been rendered practically mute. When Robert De Niro introduced Bruce Springsteen at the 2018 Tony Awards, he used the opportunity to declare: “I’m gonna say one thing. (Expletive) Trump.” Cue the standing ovation.
A Los Angeles art gallery had a “(Expletive)Trump” exhibit, rapper Eminem led an “(Expletive) Trump” call-and-response at a concert in England, and so on.
The new progressive rule is “(Expletive) you” for me, but not for thee.
The “(Expletive) Joe Biden” chant took an unexpected turn last month. The NASCAR driver Brandon Brown won a race at the Talladega Superspeedway and the reporter interviewing him misstated a growing “(Expletive) Joe Biden” chant in the background as fans saying, “Let’s go Brandon.”
The substitute version of the insult, instantly adopted by the president’s critics, is more lighthearted than the original. Fundamentally, it’s a joke. It is a gibe at Biden, but also at the misreporting of the chant at the raceway, taken as a symbol of the media’s ridiculous protectiveness toward Biden.
The chant is also amusingly anodyne, given its provenance. Who can object to the cheering on Brandon, whoever he is?
Not everyone appreciates the humor, though. When a Southwest Airlines pilot allegedly spoke the offending phrase over the intercom on a flight with an Associated Press reporter on board, the outrage machine kicked into gear in a particularly blatant display of humorlessness and lack of proportion.
Harvard professor and CNN commentator Juliette Kayyem posted a missive supposedly from another pilot calling for the Southwest pilot and the crew all to be fired on grounds that he must have been too mentally unbalanced to operate the plane.
Of course, pilots shouldn’t make political announcements on their flights, and it’d be better if no one resorted to public obscenities when referring to Biden, Trump or any other officeholder. But it’s one of the privileges of living in a democratic age that people can insult the head of state without fear of jail or other punishment.
Anyone who thinks deriding a U.S. president is breaking new, dangerous ground knows nothing of our history or what it’s like to live in a clamorous continental nation. Partisan insults, vulgar and not, come with the territory.

Question O’ The Day
If CRT isn’t real then why are they so against banning it from schools?

Glenn Youngkin Defeated Terry McAuliffe Because Democrats Betrayed Parents.
From COVID-19 closures to critical race theory, Republicans can fix schools by giving families more choice.

While former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s loss to Republican challenger Glenn Youngkin was cemented very late on election night, in practice the day that he forfeited the gubernatorial race was September 28. That was when, during a debate with Youngkin, McAuliffe, a Democrat, made the statement that “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

That was his response to questions about school curriculum and the fury that had taken hold at many local school board meetings, where irate parents assailed education leaders for allegedly supporting what has been termed “critical race theory” by right-wing activists who oppose it. CRT is a divisive concept, in part because progressives and conservative disagree sharply about what it even is. Many members of the liberal media don’t even believe it exists, and have accused the GOP of fabricating the issue. As Youngkin’s victory became apparent, MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace lamented that critical race theory, “which isn’t even real,” had swung the suburbs 15 points in Republicans’ favor.

Christopher Rufo, a conservative activist and the architect of the current CRT framing, has claimed a well-deserved victory: There’s no question that his efforts to supply a memorable name—critical race theory—for the series of semi-related, clumsy diversity initiatives and questionable curriculum choices in some public schools helped raise the salience of the issue.

Continue reading “”

The Brit MP got stabbied by a moslem jihadi import, but **Giffords** tries to use this BS article to push for more gun control over here.

**Not Giffords herself, her handlers.  Anyone with one more functioning synapse one can listen to her speak for more than 5 words and can tell she’s nothing more than a cabbage head ChattyCathy pull the string doll, which makes the odds she can write such an article as this highly unlikely.

Opinion: Gabby Giffords: The stabbing of a British MP is another example of how violence eats away at democracy

As the stabbing of Amess makes all too clear, the problem of politicized violence is endemic around the world. But in the United States, this problem is exacerbated by our tragically lax gun laws……………

From what little time I spent in Maryland, I wouldn’t want to be a part of the state either.

Justice to call special session for three Maryland counties to join West Virginia

After five Maryland lawmakers from three western Maryland counties announced that they want to secede from their state to join West Virginia, West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice has begun planning a special session to try to make it happen.

The lawmakers represent three counties that border West Virginia – Allegany, Garrett and Washington. Allegany and Garret are the two counties within the narrow strip of northwestern Maryland that extends between Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Part of Washington is also in that strip of land.

This week, the lawmakers sent letters to West Virginia House Speaker Roger Hanshaw, R-Clay and Senate President Craig Blair, R-Berkeley, requesting the state to add them as constituent counties of West Virginia. The letters said they believe the change would be beneficial to both states and requested to be advised on the next step.

All five lawmakers are Republicans in a state that is mostly Democratic. Former President Donald Trump received a majority of votes in all three counties in a state in which nearly two-thirds of the vote went for President Joe Biden. The counties are in a more rural and more conservative part of Maryland.

Justice, Hanshaw and Blair all expressed support for the change.

“Our state supports personal freedoms, we value the Second Amendment, and we love the rights of the unborn,” Justice said in a statement. “We love and embrace our energy industry. Moving to West Virginia means job opportunities like crazy and a chance to live in paradise. No matter where you’re from, we’d love to have you in West Virginia.”

There are more than 251,000 people who live in the three counties and if they joined West Virginia, two of the cities would be among the state’s 10 largest cities: Cumberland and Hagerstown.

They’re stupid enough to believe they will be immune to any consequences if things ever go kinetic.

Democrats aim to make anyone who disagrees with them an enemy of the state.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-The Moon) made the Democratic position clear Thursday: If you’re not with us, you’re terrorists.

During his opening statement for the Attorney General Merrick Garland hearing, Nadler said there was no difference between the rioters who stormed the Capitol on January 6 and parents who are angry about what is being taught in schools.

“This growth in extremist ideology is echoed in an epidemic of violence and intimidation directed at our health care professionals, teachers, essential workers, school board members and election workers,” Nadler said.

Nadler, a partisan loon who spent the past four years stirring up every conspiracy theory against President Trump, claimed there was a “broader pattern” here, including “the growing threats of violence against public servants.”

Yes, it is terrible when a sitting senator is harassed and followed into a bathroom . . . Oh he wasn’t talking about Krysten Sinema? The incident President Biden said was just “part of the process”? Huh.

We’re sure he was inspired by the climate change activists who stormed the Department of the Interior last Thursday, breaking down the front door and attempting to occupy the building. He was calling on AOC and others to denounce them. No?

How about the fact that the letter the National School Boards Association sent to Garland asking for the FBI for help, as reported by columnist Christopher Rufo, “cites only a single example of actual violence against a school official.” That the letter is in fact hyperventilating bunk, describing shouting as “violence” and people who disagree with school boards as “domestic terrorists.”

Turns out the White House knew about the letter before it was made public. Did the president order Garland to get the FBI involved?

It seems like the Biden administration is guilty of what they always accuse Republicans of: Politicizing the Department of Justice, and stifling free speech through intimidation.

Continue reading “”

Biden’s Climb to Institute Gun Restrictions Gets Steeper

The President’s gun agenda has been having a hard time through the first year of his term, and it’s only getting worse.

The House has passed two background-check expansion bills, but they aren’t going anywhere in the Senate. His plan to ban “assault weapons,” including the AR-15, hasn’t even gotten a vote in the House. Neither has his stated top priority of repealing legal protections provided to gun makers and dealers for third parties’ criminal misuse of their products.

He couldn’t even convince the Democratic Senate caucus to vote for the ATF director nominee he was counting on to shepherd his executive-branch efforts to implement gun restrictions. And it’s now unlikely he’ll get another opportunity to confirm a director before the end of his first term. That’s especially true after the new polling we saw this week.

As Americans continue to sour on the President’s handling of guns, his political capital will sink alongside his approval numbers. His approval on the issue dropped 10 points in the Economist/YouGov poll since June. It has fallen by half since the Associated Press measured it back in May.

In an atmosphere where Biden already can’t sway moderate Democratic Senators to vote for a nominee they never publicly opposed, it’s difficult to imagine how he’ll be able to convince them to vote for gun-control policies they have come out against in the past–especially while his standing with the public continues to deteriorate. Senators Angus King (I., Maine), Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.), Jon Tester (D., Mont.), and Kyrsten Sinema (D., Ariz.) wouldn’t go along what Biden wanted when he was polling 10 points better on the issue. Why would they budge on any of the gun bills he wants to pass now?

The odds get longer when you consider how low voters rank the issue of guns on their priority list. The Economist/YouGov poll found only 3 percent of Americans listed guns as their most important issue. That puts it in a tie for the 3rd-least-important issue out of thirteen polled.

As you might imagine, voter apathy tends not to generate action in DC.

So, the President is left with executive action to implement some semblance of the restrictions he seeks. He won’t have his chosen manager to push through those actions, which will handicap him to some degree. But, that doesn’t mean he won’t be able to enact sweeping changes that affect millions of American gun owners.

In fact, his administration appears to be pushing ahead with the effort to increase the ATF’s power by significantly broadening the definition of what constitutes a firearm and the effort to ban possession of nearly all of the millions of pistol-brace-equipped AR-15s in circulation. That’s despite the hundreds of thousands of mostly negative public comments on the proposals. The aggressive executive action hasn’t helped keep his approval on the gun issue up among Democrats, and it has likely driven some of the disapproval among Republicans and Independents.

But, unilateral action is the only viable approach left for him at this point. And, it’s not clear where else he’ll be able to find room to pull it off in a meaningful way. Though, it’s safe to expect him to try and do so.